Warp, faith is not based on evidence. It's based on imagination.
How are we supposed to debate imagination?
But I was not arguing about faith, but about the purported evidence for God and/or a young universe.
Everybody is, of course, entitled to their own faith and beliefs. However, once you start talking about scientific evidence, that's where we can start discussing what is and isn't, and why.
Pit topics against each others, not people. Confrontational discussion style pits people against people and uses the you-word quite often. I emphasized such occurrences to make the degree thereof rather obvious.
I don't deny that as the discussion with sudgy progressed I got more emotional than I perhaps should have, but it's difficult to remain absolutely calm in these types of topics. However, I don't think addressing someone directly with "you" is a sign of anything in itself. That's how you speak to people. In many cases I used the third person (with expressions like "creationists"), but I don't think that's in principle any better (or worse) because it's clear who I'm referring to.
Of course it's a different topic in itself whether it's socially correct to tell someone about your opinion that they may be biased and other such things. I'd say that would perhaps be out of place if it came completely out of nowhere and was off-topic. However, in this kind of thread it's something that can be expected. If someone participates in such threads, they should have some thickness of skin because heavy criticism on their world view is to be expected. I don't think that's so unreasonable.
No, Warp, I don't think it's your avatar that makes people think you are angry. You just are awfully confrontational. (Sorry about an off-topic post but I could not think how better to expose such an example.)
I don't regret in the least calling such books "pseudoscientific crap". If that's in your opinion confrontational, then so be it.
As for the rest, you emphasized the usage of the word "you" in every instance. What's the problem with that? How else should I address somebody? In the third person?
Of the games released within last 5 years, I have only played two: Portal, and Portal 2.
Do you simply not find computer games interesting, or do you simply not have the time to play them, or is there some other reason why you play so extraordinarily few games (which is quite peculiar, taking into account that you created a hugely popular website related to computer gaming)?
So galaxies formed in the last 6000 years then, in your opinion?
Yes. In the book Starlight and Time it shows how this could be the case.
And the hundreds of thousands of astrophysicists around the world, from different countries, cultures and religious backgrounds, are all in a huge world-wide conspiracy to keep quiet about this, and have all decided on the exact same lies, and have all agreed to not to publish research result indicating a young universe, and have successfully pulled off this stunt for over a hundred years.
Of course the other alternative is that that book is just pseudoscientific crap written with a specific biased agenda. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? No, it must be a conspiracy. That's much more believable.
I find it amusing and sad at the same time (sad because, as the adage goes, "a mind is a terrible thing to waste") how you advocate scientific concepts of a finite universe that had a beginning, referencing all kinds of scientific discoveries, and at the same time advocate the view that scientists are just liars and/or don't know what they are talking about. You lack internal consistency in your world view.
Please start reading actual scientific books rather than some biased pseudoscientific crap. For your own good.
Warp wrote:
Ok, give me a repeatable and falsifiable controlled test...
I would say that the best case of this is miracles.
You haven't been reading anything I have been writing, have you? What exactly do you not understand in the concept that miracle claims, even if they were completely true and accurate, do not prove the existence of a god? That it's a deductive fallacy? Please tell me what you didn't understand, so I could explain it more clearly.
(And that's not even going into the fact that some random alleged "miracles" are far, far from being a repeatable controlled test.)
Also:
3. He got healed in a way that nobody could explain (except if it was a miracle).
Do you understand what "argument from ignorance" means? If not, then please tell me so I can explain it to you, and why it doesn't work.
Where exactly are you pulling this from?
I pulled it from Exploring Creation with Biology, p. 300-301.
Then please, please start reading actual scientific literature instead of pseudoscientific crap. For your own good.
Do you understand that you are highly biased in your reading? You will easily believe anything you read that supports your world-view, regardless of how credible it might be, while dismissing everything else that doesn't.
I was saying that mutations are what need to occur for different species to have a different amount of chromosomes. That must happen for a species to evolve into another.
You seem to be mindlessly repeating some factoids that you have either read somewhere or came up on your own. You don't even understand what you are saying. You are effectively saying above that every species has a different amount of chromosomes. I don't think you even know what a chromosome is. Do you understand that most species have about 30-60 chromosomes, and that there are literally millions of different species?
Also, you don't need mutations for new species to form. Just look up, for example, the so-called ring species.
I won't change my views because I feel like everything I know points to what I think.
So you are basically saying that feelings are more reliable than observation, measurement and testing. (Of course that's clear because all creationists think like that. It's just that I admire your unusual honesty about it.)
1. I am not wanting to change my mind because of my beliefs and how I interpret the evidence.
2. You are not wanting to change your mind because of your beliefs and how you interpret the evidence.
You see, that's another annoying creationist tactic: Try to make the position of the skeptic equal to the position of the believer. Skepticism is "just another belief system", exactly in par with any other belief system. This way the creationist justifies his position as being at least as equally valid as anybody else's (but most certainly better, in their minds at least).
A part of this is that you try to make it a question of how I personally "interpret evidence", as if it was just a question of personal preferences, choices and beliefs, and as if any interpretation would be as valid as anything else, that it's just as much a question of opinion as something abstract like "what is beauty?"
Nach wrote:
Believing that God is all powerful, he can create the entire world with all the people and items in it as it is now in a moment.
I don't think you understand the consequences of that idea. Basically it means that God is deliberately tricking us into disbelieving the creation story by making the world look like it contradicts it. Tricking someone into believing a falsity is deceitful and the same thing as lying to them. Is God a deceiving liar? I thought Satan is the one who is attributed those properties.
Maybe the entire universe spins around the earth in the opposite direction?
Which would mean that stars would be moving way faster than c, and kept in their orbits around the Earth by an unknown force.
Moreover, "can you provide evidence that X does not exist?" isn't even a valid argument. It says absolutely nothing about whether X exists or not. Claiming that it does is an argument from ignorance.
It could be used for any supernatural or otherwise extraordinary claim. "Can you provide evidence that the Loch Ness monster does not exist?" "Can you provide evidence that fairies do not exist?" "Can you provide evidence that I can't move this object with my mind only?"
The subject being dealt with here is called burden of proof.
You are misinterpreting the evidence. All that is evidence that the universe was once compressed in a singularity, which then expanded. It says nothing about where that singularity came from, if it was non-existent and then somehow started to exist, or whether it has always existed in one form or another. It could have been either way, but there's no evidence for either. (In fact, one of the hypotheses that have been presented is that the universe might be cyclic, and that this universe was the result of a previous universe collapsing into a singularity. There's no definitive evidence for this either, but it's not considered a ridiculous hypothesis.)
Moreover, it's hypothesized that the current basic laws of physics (also including space and time), as we experience them now, formed immediately after the initial singularity expanded. What they were before (if there even was a "before" in any sense), that we cannot say.
And so, quite obviously, something must have done it.
Again, even if that conclusion were correct, it's not very useful because we don't know anything about that "something".
Second of all, that "thing" must have been smart, for the great galaxy seeds (in the link) show that things needed to be precise for the galaxies to form.
No, it doesn't have to be smart. Here's an alternative hypothesis to your "smart creator":
Assume that there's some kind of "metaverse" inside which our universe exists (the properties of this "metaverse" may be completely alien to us), and that some kind of property of this "metaverse" causes universes to pop up randomly, like bubbles in a boiling kettle. Each universe has a random set of physical properties and energy. (These universes might pop up in pairs, so that each universe has an "anti-universe" that balances its energy.) From the countless universes that have appeared like this, ours happens to have the properties just right for life to form.
"Where did this metaverse come from?" It may be that the whole concept of "time" is completely nonsensical in this metaverse, and it's just not sensible to talk about a beginning, or even the passage of time. (This isn't even a very far-fetched of an idea, especially if you have studied some quantum physics.) And even if it had some kind of beginning, that cause precludes our universe having been created on purpose and intelligently (because, as said, in this premise it was created completely randomly), which is the point.
(Now, this is a pair of hypotheses, ie. the "intelligent creator hypothesis" and the "mindless metaverse hypothesis", that are on equal ground, and one is not more believable than the other because neither has evidence. However, it shows that the intelligent creator hypothesis is not the only possibility.)
I believe that the Bible has more authority than science
It means it's a good hypothesis, but you can't prove that that's how reality truly works that way
Note that I said "I don't have any reason to doubt that gravity exists". That wording is carefully chosen. I did not say anything along the lines of "I have proof that gravity exists" or "gravity is caused by this and that".
sudgy wrote:
I don't have any reason to doubt that God exists.
Equivocating different categories of evidence, but whatever. When someone starts nitpicking, the conversation is already lost.
Warp wrote:
What kind of experience would that be?
Very simply, I have prayed, and the prayer has been answered. He also still does miracles today.
Even assuming that both claims are completely and absolutely accurate (something quite extraordinary, but let's just grant those premises), that's still not proof for the existence of a god. In short: You are disregarding other possible sources for such "answers" and "miracles".
The fallacy you are falling for here is called "affirming the consequent". Granted, it's quite hard to spot, and even to see it even when pointed out, but let me try to explain. The archetypical example of the "affirming the consequent" fallacy is something like:
1) If it rains, I get wet.
2) I'm wet.
3) Therefore it's raining.
I assume you see why the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. (In other words, there may be other causes for you being wet.) How does this relate to "miracles" and "answered prayers"? Like this:
1) If the God of the Bible exists, he performs miracles and answers prayers.
2) Miracles do happen and prayers are answered.
3) Therefore the God of the Bible exists.
Thus even if we grant that miracles do happen and prayers are answered, that still doesn't prove anything. Arguing that the source must be the God of the Bible is an argumentative fallacy. (Again: You might be misattributing the source.)
(As I said: Yes, I have seen all these arguments a million of times, and I know why they don't work.)
We can in some ways test and verify God. We can through what he does on Earth.
Ok, give me a repeatable and falsifiable controlled test that can be performed by independent neutral parties and explain the theory behind it. Be accurate, and explain what other causes there might be for the results and explain why they should be dismissed.
Let's say that these self-replicating molecules somehow did evolve into single-celled organisms. But there is very little evidence that the single-celled organisms evolved into more complex organisms.
You might not notice it even yourself, but you are now changing the subject, without acknowledging the answer to the original question (at least not directly).
This is a very typical (and bordering the dishonest) discussion tactic employed by creationists (and also by conspiracy theorists, denialists, homeopaths, etc): Keep presenting objections and arguments to established science, and every time an answer is given, just present a new objection about another subject without acknowledging the answer. If at some point you are able to present an argument that the opponent doesn't have an immediate answer to, you can declare victory on that one argument alone (naturally ignoring the myriad of previous arguments that were answered).
We don't know how the rocks were made.
*sigh* Yeah, we are completely stupid, and we don't understand geology at all. We are just shooting in the dark.
They could have been made slowly, and then it would be evidence for macroevolution (I say macroevolution because it is completely different than microevolution. Microevolution has a lot more evidence than macroevolution).
Those concepts are antiquated. They might have been used a hundred years ago, but the distinction is so fuzzy that it's not very practical to keep them as separate concepts. There's no divisive line where you can unambiguously state "microevolution ends here, and macroevolution happened". Of course creationists love to keep these two concepts separate because there's too much evidence for evolution to deny it, and hence creationists want to shove it all into "microevolution" so that they can still deny "macroevolution".
Of course even creationists themselves are unable to define the difference. Some say that it's the formation of new species (something that has been directly observed), others start waving hands a lot more and start talking about some vaguely defined "kinds". None of them can explain what exactly stops a species from spawning new species or "kinds" over time, when enough "microevolution" happens.
Second, there are barely any (if there are any) fossils of intermediate links.
Ah, the creationist mantra: "There are no transitional fossils." Repeat it enough times, and perhaps people will start believing it. Too bad that this claim is completely false and fabricated. There are plenty of transitional fossils, which you will find info about if you do a bit of research (from non-creationist sources, of course).
And this not even going to the discussion of the term "transitional". You see, most creationists have this antiquated notion that there exist a bunch of idealized "species" to which every living being unambiguously belongs to and which are clearly distinct from each other. Hence if a group of such beings "transforms into another species", then for a time they are "in-between" these two "idealized species" and thus are "transitional". This is where the ridiculous arguments about "half wings" and "half beaks" stem from. All these notions are complete bollocks.
Even though some (probably now extinct) species X evolved from an older species Y, and spawned a modern species Z, making it "transitional" between Y and Z, that doesn't make it "intermediate" in the sense of being "half-Y and half-Z". It was a whole species in its own right. Every single individual in the entire evolutionary history of a modern species was a species on its own right. There are no hard transition points between a modern species and its ancestors. It's all one smooth curve. We can mark some points in this curve and give them names, but they will be more or less arbitrary (we could well shift the points and it wouldn't be any less right).
Also, there are no "idealized species" (or "kinds"). Every single species is changing constantly. Some species change significantly more slowly than others, but they all change.
Macroevolutionists sometimes have to lie to make people believe it.
Ah, now we are going straight to conspiracy theory land. Your arguments are plummeting quite rapidly, I must say.
The hundreds of thousands of evolutionary (and many other type of) scientists from all over the world, from different countries, cultures and religious backgrounds, are all in a huge world-wide conspiracy to keep quiet about the "problems" in "macroevolution". They won't discuss these problems publicly, they won't publish papers and research about them, and they all agree on what kinds of lies they will tell the world, and hope that no scientists who are not "in the loop" will ever notice. And they have been successful at this for over a hundred years.
Yeah, sure. And Santa Claus brings me gifts every Christmas using flying reindeer.
They have now come up with another version of macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium. They say (basically) that at certain points in the past, life forms were exposed to high amounts of radiation or something like it, which would make them mutate.
Where exactly are you pulling this from? Your ass?
Punctuated equilibrium is not "another version of macroevolution" and has absolutely nothing to do with "radiation". It's simply the hypothesis that a small group of animals can experience more rapid evolution if they are isolated and experience strong evolutionary pressure (in other words, their environment changes drastically from what they are used to, and large changes in a certain direction are more easily selected by natural selection).
Larger groups of animals tend to change more slowly than smaller groups, because any changes that an individual has when it's born tend to be "evened out" by subsequent iterative breeding with a large population. In very small populations, however, such changes are more significant and can change subsequent generations more. If the environment favors changes in a certain direction, they tend to be selected more efficiently than with very large populations.
This is in no way any kind of "alternative" to the classical notions of evolution, nor in any kind of contradiction. On the contrary.
there has never been a mutation that has been completely benificial.
Ah, another creationist mantra.
Mutations are not the main driving force of evolution, but they do have beneficial effects from time to time. And yes, there are plenty of examples of beneficial mutations in all kinds of living organisms.
Dr. Michael Denton, an macroevolutionist says:
Quote mining, another favorite creationist tactic.
The strength of quote mining is that it's hard to respond to, because making a proper response requires a lot of research, and if the opponent has not done that research previously, the creationist can then declare "victory".
In surprisingly many cases it's enough to just read the next sentence that was not included in the quote (or, if there are ellipses, to read what was left out). Of course in other cases it's not that easy. The entire paper would need to be read, and later publications from the same person. Then one would have to check if the paper has been peer-reviewed, and what other papers have been published on the subject, possibly as a response.
An individual quote is always suspect if it blatantly goes against everything else that the person has written and said, and/or the general scientific consensus. (And no, it's not a case of the scientific community shunning and ignoring an objection. I already explained that conspiracy theory.)
I won't change my views
I really admire your honesty, but I hope you see why that kind of stance is problematic. It's dogmatic. You are not engaging in a conversation, you are simply stating your stance with the preconceived intention to ignore all the answers and objections. You have decided in advance that you will not consider anything else than what you have already decided.
Well, gravity in the sense that large masses actively attract lower masses is a random belief.
The question was not "what do you think gravity is, exactly?" The question was: "Do you believe that gravity exists?"
There's no reason to doubt the existence of gravity. We can discuss all day long about the exact terminology to refer to the causes for gravity, but that doesn't change the fact that there's ample evidence that it exists. As I have said many times: You can observe, measure and test it, you can formulate it, you can make accurate predictions of how it will work in different situations and you can test those predictions. Gravity is falsifiable.
The existence of God is none of those things. God is a hypothesis that cannot be tested nor verified.
That's just as much based on belief as believing in God because you see overwhelming evidence for his existance after observing loads of evidence for it from your own experience. Seriously, think about it. You're making the very same mistake you ascribe to religious people here.
No, I'm not. Gravity as a phenomenon can be measured and tested, and we can observe its effects and see that it behaves consistently. You can create formulas that describe gravity and using them make accurate predictions on how it will behave. Gravity does not act differently on different people, nor is it dependent on each person's individual perceptions, feelings and thoughts. It always acts the same on everything independently on who is making the observation and testing.
God, on the other hand, cannot be detected, observed, measured or tested. There are no formulas, consistency nor predictive power in the notion of God. The whole concept of "God" is fuzzy, everybody has different opinions on what it is, and it's very, very much dependent on personal feelings and emotions how one perceives the concept. Nobody can even give a consistent definition of "God". Even the most vacuous definition of "whatever caused the universe to exist" is meaningless and empty because, as said, we cannot know anything at all about this hypothesized "God" because we cannot observe, measure nor test it.
There's a whole world of a difference.
There is reason to doubt in gravity is an elemental force.
Now you are making a category error. Nowhere did I say "I think gravity is an elemental force."
It's poorly understood, it's spooky action at a distance and it's for some reason a lot weaker than all the other elemental forces.
So what?
As long as there are alternate explanations, it's not reasonable to just blindly pick one and believe in it
Blindly? That sentence couldn't be more nonsensical even if you tried.
Not all explanations are equal. Some explanations are more backed up by experimental evidence and research than others. The existence of alternative hypotheses does certainly not make all of them equally valid. That's just silly.
Science has shown great evidence for certain things. It can't prove anything, but do you believe in gravity?
It's not a question of belief. The term "belief" implies some kind of blind faith based on flimsy or no evidence, based more on feelings. I prefer to use "I don't have any reason to doubt" that gravity exists.
And what is completely reliable? That's right: Nothing.
I disagree with you here. There is one thing that is completely reliable. And that is God. You don't agree with me on this, so please don't talk about it further.
You are making such a category error here that I'm not even bothering to try to correct it. I'm pretty sure you yourself understand it.
1. If you mean His personality, then it is explained in the Bible.
So you are not only saying that a creator must have created this universe, you are moreover saying that this creator is the God of the Bible. Why do you assume that the Bible is correct and accurate?
(And that was a rhetorical question. I don't think you can give me an answer I haven't heard a million times already. All such answers are logical fallacies. If you really want to, you can give me your reasoning and I can tell you why it's a fallacy, but I'm not sure if this thread should become such an endless back-and-forth discussion that will not convince either one of us.)
(Also notice that I'm not saying that what the Bible says is not true. What I am saying is that the Bible is not proof of anything, from a scientific or even just rational point of view. "This is true because the Bible says so" is not even an argument. Although many of the things you say are not found in the Bible either. They seem to be your own interpretations.)
All of your answer that you gave in your post make the unjustified assumption, so there's really no need to go over them. Except perhaps for this one:
9. Oh yes. I know he does from experience.
What kind of experience would that be?
And let's say that on each of these, every million years or so (all of these are very rough estimates, you could change these by a lot) all of the EXACT RIGHT chemicals are in the same place to make some life form a bit simpler than a bacterium (I say a bit simpler because something too much simpler wouldn't survive).
That's one of the most common misconceptions that creationists (and even some other people) have about abiogenesis. They believe that "evolution" (with which they really mean abiogenesis) says that in the initial "primordial soup" a simple single-celled organism appeared ready-made by pure chance, maybe via a lightning strike.
No. The very first form of "life" (if it can be called that) were most probably simple molecules that could self-replicate in one form of another. It probably took hundreds of millions of years of natural selection before the first simple single-celled organisms evolved from these self-replicating molecules.
And this is not just hand-waving. There's a good deal of research done on the mechanisms of these self-replicating molecules. Of course fully understanding this would require reading quite a lot of scientific papers on the subject, and it would require advanced knowledge in biochemistry and molecular biology...
But my point is, in the earlier scenerio, the DNA would have to be completly random (the whole thing is random).
Exactly why do you assume that DNA formed in one single step, and that it was completely random?
No, DNA most probably formed from very simple self-replicating molecules in a timespan of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. Randomness was involved, but so much more was selection. (I assume you understand the most basic concepts of natural selection so I don't have to explain it.)
Your numbers are completely fallacious because you start from the assumption that DNA formed in one single step at random. It didn't.
It really demonstrates the concept of prejudice quite well. Notice the reason why they think teenage and adult males should not watch the show. Is it because the show is boring or bad? No. It's only because it's a show "for little girls" and men should not watch such things. No other reason. It doesn't really matter what the content of the show might be. If you like it, you are weird, period.
(I'm pretty sure they also have a double standard. If there was a very manly animated show, I'm pretty sure they would not be telling to females that they should not be watching the show because its target audience is males.)
And what exactly can be deduced from that? (In other words, what exactly is your point?)
Surely you understand that "science cannot prove everything, hence God" is a really blatant argumentative fallacy? It just doesn't work, no matter how you word it. (It's called argument from ignorance, if you are curious.)
It is not completely reliable.
And what is completely reliable? That's right: Nothing.
However, the more important question is: Which methodology of discerning the properties of the universe is the most reliable? Science is, by far, the most reliable way. What other ways are there? (Don't bother answering. Any alternatives will in their core be basically just a claim that "feelings and strong emotions are more reliable than physical observation, measurement and testing", which is ridiculous.)
There is a LOT of evidence for a Creator (the universe was made perfectly, if anything was different, we wouldn't exist).
Even if that were true (which isn't a given, but let's grant it), it doesn't really say anything at all. It's effectively a null statement. It raises more questions than it answers.
What kind of "creator"? Is this "creator" sentient? Does he exist currently? (After all, it's possible that this "creator" created the universe, but consumed itself completely in order to do so and thus ceased to exist.) Are there more than one, or is this "creator" unique? Was this "creator" itself also created by another? How long has this "creator" existed? Where is this "creator"? (Is he in a specific place, or is he "everywhere"?) What are the properties of this "creator"? Does he observe us?
Don't bother trying to answer any of those questions because you can't. Even an attempt would be ridiculous, so save yourself the trouble.
As long as we can't observe and measure this hypothetical "creator", it's a useless hypothesis. It only raises more questions than it answers.
It is impossible for life to have been made randomly (I can show evidence for this if you want)
In other words, misinterpretations of science. (A complete misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the favorite of all creationists.)
It's also funny how "science cannot prove anything", but immediately when it's time to (ab)use science to prove how life could not have been formed on its own, suddenly science consists of well-proven and irrefutable facts. (Curiously science is accurate and reliable only when it suits the creationist's needs. In all other cases it's unreliable shooting in the dark.)
and everything in the universe is in the exact right place for life to be sustained on Earth.
That's one of the easiest examples for understanding the anthropic principle.
There are probably billions and billions of planets in our galaxy alone. (Multiply that by the amount of galaxies in the universe.) Each planet has some randomly-set conditions. Their composition, mass, radius, density, distance from the star, the properties of the star, possible moons, other planets in the same system and a million other variables vary randomly from planet to planet. All these parameters are quite random due to how planetary systems form.
Some planets will be more inhospitable than others due to all these factors. A few planets in existence in the universe will have all these parameters just right for some kind of life to be possible on their surface. Yes, completely by chance. This isn't even far-fetched. One of those planets happened to form around this particular star in this particular galaxy. There's nothing special about this particular star or galaxy; there are probably many other similar planets elsewhere. There's nothing "impossible" about Earth being like it is.
In other words, the anthropic principle: It's not that Earth was created for life to exist on it. It's the other way around: Life exists on Earth because Earth happens to have the right conditions to be habitable.
It may be difficult to come up with a distinctive icon because we might want to distinguish between PC/Mac games and so-called "home computers" (such as C64, Spectrum, Amstrad...), which have their own games and history, and also have keyboards (usually connected to a TV).
A mouse is pretty much unique to a PC (with the exception that the Commodore Amiga also had a mouse, IIRC, and it might be possible that in the future if we TAS Amiga games, we might want to make a distinction; OTOH Amiga had a distinctive logo that could be used to distinguish it as an icon).
Perhaps a mouse icon would be enough. It would also better fit the size of these award icons.
In that time, people hanged themself on trees that hung over the edge of cliffs (so that if it broke, they would fall and die anyway).
That factoid sounds like completely made-up, unless they can site ample references to literature of the time that indicates so.
And according to the scientific tests that are done on books/records
I always find it amusing how science is reliable and trustworthy when it supports some ideological cause, but unreliable and evil when it contradicts it. It amuses me even more when supporters of such ideology try to claim that "science proves this or that", without giving any actual references to actual scientific research. ("Christian science" doesn't count. It's as trustworthy as voodoo magic.)
Also, the whole USA isn't to blame for that. No one I know wanted those stupid bills to pass.
Democracy: When a small elite group of people pass laws that the majority of citizens oppose, while still pretending to represent these people. And the citizens keep voting for this small elite group year after year.
- I have never played with a PlayStation 3 nor a Nintendo DS. (The list would be larger if I included all the history of consoles, but I'll restrict it to the current-generation ones.)
- I have never played a Zelda game.
Could this topic be kind of reversed as well? In other words: What's the most unusual (gaming-related) thing you have done that the vast majority of other gamers probably haven't?
"The skeptic is always wrong" is an omnipresent trope in most fiction, but especially in kids' shows (regardless of the medium). It sucks, but it has always been and probably will always be, and one just has to live with it unless one wants to go mad from frustration.
I don't really understand where this trope is coming from and why it's so prevalent. Maybe it has something to do with classical fairytales having set some kind of universal precedent.
Which browser are you using? Looks like some kind of bug in your browser, which changes the fonts of the entire page if even one character is a kanji. I have never noticed such a phenomenon in any browser I have used in several systems. Are you using an unconventional web browser?
